Best books about evangelism according to redditors
We found 306 Reddit comments discussing the best books about evangelism. We ranked the 76 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 306 Reddit comments discussing the best books about evangelism. We ranked the 76 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
After reading through your responses here, I feel the need to clarify for you exactly what an argument is and what it can do. You list examples like evolution and heliocentrism and ask how those might affect one's faith. In reality, these arguments do nothing to disprove God, and are in fact separate issues entirely.
The way you've been speaking so far, it seems like the arguments you're assuming are these:
and
Do you see the leaps here? The statement "God does exist" is not a logically valid inference from these arguments. They, in fact, cannot say anything about whether or not God exists; such is simply not a possibility in the premises. What they really can do is this:
and
Now, does "the church was wrong [on this occasion]" and "some Christians are wrong" equate to "God does not exist?" No. It means that it is a logical possibility, yes, but it does mean that is certain or even probable.
In addition, you'll find that these arguments are not conflicts at all for the vast majority of Christians, especially those who frequent r/Christianity. This is why:
You should also be aware of the philosophical foundation for science. Science is inherently naturalistic, which means that it cannot interact in any way with things outside of nature (related: it is also incapable of 'proving' anything, only math and logic can do that; science can only disprove and assume that which is most probable given the evidence). This includes God, as he exists outside of the universe as we perceive it. Dealing with things outside of nature is the realm of metaphysics, and metaphysics is largely philosophy and logic, not science. Thus, any argument that claims "science has proven God does not exist" is an argument resetting entirely on false beliefs about what exactly science is. This is what others in this thread have been saying.
Given all that, you'd do well to know exactly what arguments do set out to disprove God - and there are very few of them that do so in a valid way. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theogica, was in the habit of stating a point, giving three positions on this point, and then stating his view which was contrary to the three and then arguing against the three first points. In his section on "Whether God Exists?" he only lists two reasons; this is because very few of the arguments that claim to disprove God can actually logically do so. These are the arguments he lists:
and
Note that these aren't the arguments exactly as he lists them; I've updated them slightly to better reflect how they are used today.
The second argument is yet another argument making a logically invalid conclusion from the premises. Whether or not mankind needs God to exist is irrelevant to whether or not he actually exists. Thus this argument falls flat.
The first argument is known as the Problem of Evil, and it has been a huge issue for theists for a very long time. It has not been answered in a way that most theists find existentially satisfying, meaning that no matter how the problem is answered, evil is always a big problem in everyone's life, and it's always hard to understand why God won't just take it away. That said, the Problem of Evil relies entirely on this premise:
We have to ask is that really so? And the answer is, we have no idea if it is or not. It is logically possible that an all-good, all-poweful being could co-exist with evil, even if we don't know how that is possible. Ultimately, this argument is an argument from ignorance, meaning that it relies on the fact that we don't know something to make its claim (The "God of the gaps" argument does the same thing, by the way - it says "Look, we don't know how x or y happen, therefore God"). This is a logical fallacy, and as a result the problem of evil also cannot logically disprove God - though the answer does very little to comfort someone dealing with evil.
I highly recommend you watch Tim Keller on the Problem of Evil at Google. Tim Keller is a big-name pastor in New York in addition to being a popular apologist (meaning one who defends an intellectual stance - in this case, Christianity).
I feel it's worth mentioning what is probably the most common argument against theism, and especially Christianity, most especially on the internet. This is the argument:
You should be able to tell by now that this argument is not a true argument at all. The conclusion has nothing at all to do with the premise. It sounds crazy to some people that Christians believe in life after death, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist. It sounds crazy to some people that some Christians believe that bread blessed by a priest becomes the body of Christ, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist (a lot of the popular arguments against evolution use this tactic, and are also invalid). This tactic is the one most commonly used by Richard Dawkins.
Ultimately, that 'argument' fails because it relies entirely on the perception of the individual and has absolutely nothing to do with logic. It merely disguises itself as logic.
Now, if you really want to read more about why people believe God can logically exist, you want to look into books on apologetics. There are a whole lot of those, as it has been a popular topic for hundreds of years now, but two that are quite accessible and quite strong are The Reason for God by Tim Keller, who I mentioned above, and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, of Narnia fame. These two books deal with how God can logically exist, but there are a wealth of books on other apologetic issues, like how we can trust the Bible to be accurate (Reinventing Jesus is a very good book for this issue).
Edit: error corrections, some paranthetical statements.
Might as well check out the Penn & Teller Bullshit! take on Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama if you're interested in this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI8A0VsgeuY
And if you really want to hone the criticism:
http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Verdict-Aroup-Chatterjee/dp/8188248002/
Mother Teresa gets a free pass all the time in several arenas as one of the "saintliest" human beings ever to walk the earth. This is a titanic sham and an excellent PR job by the Catholic church. Do humanity a favor and bust the bubble next time you hear it brought up. For those wondering about my old submission, I brought it up in my debate class when Mother Teresa was raised, but the professor shut me down by saying that criticism of Mother Teresa, even if true, would do more harm than good by disillusioning people who behave charitably because they hope to follow her example. Yeah, right. (Yes; turns out the professor is Catholic.) Charity with religious strings attached is proselytizing by using the disadvantaged—nothing more than rapacious opportunism.
While this book is kind of loony, Frank Schaeffer is an interesting guy and not an idiot. I recommend his other book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
It's actually impressive how far he has come since he was a big shot in the Christian Right.
"The Reason for God" Tim Keller.
The Case for Christ (the [book][1], although the [film][2] adaptation wasn't horrible) and Cold Case Christianity would probably be good reads for you.
Case for Christ was written by an investigative journalist and legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. It details his transition from Atheism to Christianity, and how his attempt to debunk Christianity lead to him coming to Christ.
Cold Case Christianity was written by a detective who solved a number of high-profile cold cases. He has a similar story, as his book details his conversion from Atheism to Christianity through the use of cold-case investigation techniques.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310345863/
[2]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6113488/
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism - Tim Keller
Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target - John Lennox
The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God - John Frame
Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis - Greg Bahnsen
The last two are more in-depth philosophy-wise than the first three.
One of my wife's books (I haven't read it) might be of interest to you.
Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
A book that has helped me with your same questions is "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller. His position is that there is much more reason to believe in God than there isn't. I appreciated how he doesn't come across saying, "This is what PROVES Christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt!" Instead, he goes through empirical, scientific, and rational evidence that points to a creator. Go check it out. https://smile.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522341268&sr=8-1&keywords=reason+for+god+keller
C.S. Lewis, a well known Christian author, was once an adamant atheist. He described himself as "the most reluctant convert to Christianity"
From http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/node/48:
"Once, before embarking on a long train ride, Lewis purchased a copy of George MacDonald's book Phantastes. He was surprised by what happened during his reading. Something came off the pages and "baptized his imagination." Although he couldn't put this quality into words at that time, he later came to describe it as holiness."
God does work in these ways to call those he wants to believe in him.
As a Christian who has struggled with atheistic / agnostic ideas in the past, I'd highly recommend Timothy Keller's book "The Reason for God". It calmly and rationally shows that it isn't unreasonable to believe in the Christian God.
https://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520121396&sr=8-1&keywords=reason+for+god
Oh, man, GEB changed my life in a way that many people might not appreciate. Here's a copy of a post I made before
****
Whereas my upbringing was not like yours (my parents raised me to be open-minded and inquisitive), my sunday-school teachings sunk into me in a way that made me a true believer, without my own knowledge of it.
In many ways, it was like Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God.
I just knew it was right, and I would read into things... the Gulf War, to me, was the first sign of apocalypse, that kind of stuff.
I told my girlfriend how I got out of it, and she wanted me to share this with people:
I had gone through some truly horrible experiences in college and dropped out for a few years. The whole time, I wondered, "why, God, I have been a good person, why is this happening to me, I have done everything you have wanted me to do."
The problem of theodicy... why do bad things happen to good people?
I started searching for answers, and eventually came across Godel, Escher, Bach. In digesting and reasoning through it, I realized the following:
Within any formal system sufficient for arithmetic, there are truths that cannot be proved within that system, that are nonetheless still true.
I had a rigid belief system that I felt was analogous to a formal system, in its rigidity, requirements for self-consistency, and stricture. I could finally acknowledge it, but couldn't, for the life of me, get out of it. It may not have been formal system in the strictest sense, but it had many of the same properties.
However, I also knew I was missing something, some higher truth that I couldn't perceive within the system. I realized I needed to Jump Out Of the System.
That is to say, I knew there was a larger truth (or truths) out there, beyond my reach, but I could not grasp it within the language of the system I was stuck in. That did not deny the greater truth of that "out there", but rather highlighted my limitations due to the strictures of my belief system at the time. Nonetheless, my rational abilities let me take the leap of reasoned faith that my instincts couldn't allow.
So I took the leap, around 1998, methinks. Explored alternate belief systems, altered states of consciousness, and have come to see that small opening outside my boundaries in much the same way as the simple jump the robot Moe does when he first walks outside the lines in the movie Wall-E.
I really do feel for people indoctrinated in any belief system that claims exclusive privilege on truth. As Shakespeare writes in Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt in your philosophy.
Try this.
https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Hope-Essential-Writings-Speeches/dp/0060646918
I enjoyed Tim Keller's Reason for God
New Evidence that Demands a Verdict
More Than a Carpenter
Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels On my to read list.
Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
The Case for a Creator
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus On my to read list.
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ On my to read list.
Besides the apologetics books, you can watch John Lennox on YouTube. He is a very well-spoken and kind (doesn't attack the other debater) debater. Very well thought out responses. The Dawkins vs Lennox debate was awesome! Ditto Gary Habermas as well.
> The book is quite hard to get, though
Only if you want the physical version for some reason. Yay for ebooks.
I'm a Presbyterian(PCA) and I would strongly recommend Timothy Keller. I think that you would find him very insightful. You can go here and there are some free sermons. He seems to me to be one of the most rational and intelligent theologians out there, but yea I would strongly advise him. He has also written some books and you can find them on Amazon. The books I would suggest by him are Reason for God, Counterfeit Gods, and the Prodigal God.
I'll start with theology (broadly construed) first. There's no particular order, but I've separated them into "lighter" and "heavier" categories. I'm happy to talk about why I think each book is a "must read" you want. I'll try to come back later and give some fiction recommendations.
Lighter theology:
Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition by Jamie Smith (top recommendation if you haven't read it).
Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport: Making Connections in Today's World by Richard Mouw.
Knowing God by J.I. Packer.
Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul
Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin by Cornelius Plantinga.
Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill.
[Rejoicing in Lament: Wrestling with Incurable Cancer and Life in Christ] (http://www.amazon.com/Rejoicing-Lament-Wrestling-Incurable-Cancer/dp/1587433583) by J. Todd Billings
Christ, Baptism and the Lord's Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship
When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor . . . and Yourself by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham.
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins.
Literally everything by CS Lewis
Any of Zondervan's Counterpoints series. My current favorite in the series is Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy by Al Mohler, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, Peter Enns, and John Franke
Heavier Theology
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon
Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships by James Brownson.
Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation by R. Michael Allen and Scott Swain
Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader by Allen
The abridged version of Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Bavink.
Systematic Theology
Hey, welcome to the sub. :)
First off, you have the right attitude (more than many churchgoers, it seems). You want to understand and wrestle and have it be real. Good news: you're on the right track. Faith is hard, at least most of the time. I'm sorry others looked down on you for asking questions and trying to figure things out; they were wrong to do so.
I agree with what others here are saying: Genesis is probably not the easiest place to start, and you'll get even more bogged down in Numbers or in Chronicles. Start in one of the Gospels. I saw Luke suggested, and I'll throw in John. Luke's writing has more details, and John's might be easier to read.
Starting in the Gospels has a purpose: Jesus is really the major focus. There's a lot to gain from reading his words firsthand, and seeing his actions. You might find it a lot different from what the culture says about him. Take your time and soak it in, and I think you'll find him pretty compelling.
After that, Paul's letters are pretty great. Philippians might be a good one to read first, though they're all really short and won't take long.
I might also suggest reading a different version of the Bible. The NRSV is accurate, but can also be archaic and difficult to understand. There are a lot of debates over Bible versions, but don't sweat them for now; I'd suggest the ESV or the CEB (if you want to study deeper later, the NRSV might be better then).
You'll probably want to find a church. This can be hit-and-miss, depending on so many factors. You won't and shouldn't fit into a church that looks down on you for struggling with faith. To start, even though it might feel silly, talk to God about it. Doesn't have to be fancy, just a conversation asking him to help you find a good church. Visit a couple, and see if they try to follow the Jesus you read about in the Bible.
(And if you're in the Dallas area, let me know... you can visit ours! :D I know a couple other great churches in the area too.)
If you're looking for more resources, it depends on what you're interested in.
BUT... don't go crazy. Start with the Gospels and maybe Mere Christianity, and go from there.
If you have questions about what you're reading, feel free to come to this sub or /r/TrueChristian and ask. To be fair, there will be several opposing opinions on more controversial issues, which is a double-edged sword sometimes. But most everyone is welcoming, kind, and happy to discuss anything.
Currently:
Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen
The Reason for God by Tim Keller
Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology by Scott Oliphint
The Defense of the Faith by Cornelius Van Til
Contending with Christianities Critics by Paul Copan, William Lane Craig et al.
Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ by Darell Bock and David Wallace
> If you could explain how supplying school buses to students is a negative thing, even if it was started due to desegregation, I would appreciate it. I'm not asserting that it isn't, I just fail to see it.
Okay, essentially after the Supreme Court handed down Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 there was a great deal of uproar as school districts found themselves newly unable to segregate schools by race by law or policy; there was a great deal of racist backlash against the implementation of SCOTUS' vision in Brown, i.e. that black and white students receive education in the same classrooms. The backlash took many forms as white school district and elected officials scrambled to find ways to obstruct the courts and maintain de facto segregation. By the late 60s and early 70s, the courts had become exasperated with the lack of progress in ending de facto segregation and began forcing school districts into more systematic schemes to achieve educational integration. Often these schemes involved requiring each individual school in a district to maintain a demographic balance that reflected the racial demographics of the school district as a whole. This resulted in students being assigned to schools on the other side of the district, and they would have to get there by bus. Opposition to busing was two parts. There was upset that white children were being reassigned to geographically closer schools to ones farther away. A great deal of the backlash, however, was whites angry that black students were establishing a presence in schools that were, until then, exclusively white schools. Black parents, on the whole, were pleased to have an opportunity to send their children to qualitatively better schools, and black bused students had better outcomes.
> States rights is NOT a legal justification to Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws are unconstitutional
Yes, because there was a series of federal legislation and judicial decisions through the middle of the last century that overturned previous precident and drumroll took away a state's right to enforce Jim Crow laws.
> I've admitted the areas in which I'm ignorant. I am completely open to other points of views, you have simply failed to provide any.
Look, real talk here. If you're an adult, it's no one's job to educate you. It's your job to educate yourself. And in any event you shouldn't be learning your historical facts from dubious strangers on Reddit, especially not one that is of such moral and social import as race and racism. Watch some documentaries about the Civil Rights movement on Netflix or youtube (ones produced by reputable people). Visit a civil rights museum. Read some books. I recommend reading two books concurrently, one a history of race in America (like this) and the other a collection of source texts (I recommend this one). Knowledge of the past should shape how you understand the present.
Check out a book called Crazy For God by Frank Schaeffer. He explains how the eveangelical movement got going so heavily in America and how abortion was used as the binding rallying cry. Its told from an insiders perspective that he has since left behind.
https://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0306817500/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=crazy+for+god+frank+schaeffer&qid=1557866357&s=gateway&sprefix=crazy+for+g&sr=8-1
As far as 'Christianity's views on atheists' views,' I would recommend a book called The Reason for God. This book isn't super deep, so if you want intense logical argument it may not be the best, but it is super clear in discussing a lot of objections people have against theism and the Christian God.
For a website discussing history, ideas, beliefs, etc, one good resource I can think of off the top of my head is Monergism
I'm going to highly (with emphasis) recommend "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller.
It's worth buying it. There are some ideas that you will want to re-read. He has spent years as a pastor of a church in New York city answering some of the core reasonable questions that the skeptics ask. Even if you don't become a believer, I think this will provide you some ways of viewing the questions you are asking, and it will probably provide a few questions for Christianity that you haven't thought about yet and then provide a reasonable argument.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the book while you're going through it.
Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns addresses some of these issues and is oriented toward Evangelicals who have tried to build their faith on biblical inerrancy and literalism.
I also highly recommend The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark. Roughly half the book deals with the problems of biblical inerrancy, and half with the violence and cruelty of the Old Testament. It is ruthlessly honest in its approach to the Bible, something that I've never seen in apologetics or pro-inerrancy material.
Sounds like Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns.
Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by Packer is the seminal work, and it's a quick read. Kind of like a Bondage of the Will-size treatment of a reformed doctrine of evangelism. Amazon link.
An approach to evangelism that is not only extremely helpful for all but also places the right emphasis on the power of God in conversion is Questioning Evangelism by Randy Newman. Amazon link.
Hello,
This book is a robust examination of the Christian faith, looking not only at doctrine but the evidence for the truth claims of scripture.
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696
I greatly respect your attitude towards your husbands faith. The fact that you're here asking this speaks volumes.
edit: bonus recommdations
https://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Carpenter-Josh-McDowell/dp/1414326270/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
I really am not sure what bait you are holding out, or for whom. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a historical event and belongs in the realm of historians. Science has as much to do with the fact of Christ's resurrection as it does with the creation of an independent nation state in 1776, or with the question of the intrinsic rights of man, etc.
I am not a historian but I would love to refer you to Tim Keller's The Reason for God which has an in depth chapter discussing historical events proving the resurrection of Christ.
People usually recommend The Evangelical Universalist. I haven't read it myself, but it appears to have a good mix of both Biblical support and philosophical arguments.
Hope Beyond Hell is all about the Biblical arguments, and you can get the pdf for free.
The Inescapable Love of God is another I should mention, since Thomas Talbot still engages in debates online.
There have been a ton of books released on universalism in the past two or three decades; it's hard to say which one to pick. I did read Destined for Salvation by Kalen Fristad and liked it, and it's rather short.
I was listening to an interview about universalism with Robin Parry (the evangelical universalist) on an emergent/post-evangelical podcast I subscribe to. The interviewer started to talk shit about PSA for turning everyone against unversalism (I hope the irony of post-evangelicals punishing PSA for the sins of evangelicalism isn't lost on anyone), and Parry pointed out that if you already subscribe to PSA, you have to accept either limited atonement or universalism. In fact, this was basically the Puritans' defense of limited atonement; given PSA, the only way to make sense of the conviction that some people will actually go to hell is to accept limited atonement.
The "problem" you seem to have is something that every Christian on earth struggles with - the disconnection between knowing something in your head and knowing it in your heart.
This is something I struggle with - there's a stark difference between being intellectually convinced of the existence of God and actually feeling like He exists.
There's a difference between knowing "Yeah, yeah, God loves me." And actually feeling the incalculable, unrestrained love of God.
There's a difference between knowing theologically that you're forgiven and actually feeling forgiven.
It's a difficult hurdle. Fortunately, God is there to help you.
God sends the Holy Spirit to us so that we can experience the presence of God, so that our knowledge of Him can drop down from our head to our heart.
For a long time, I sought an experience. I'm an extreme skeptic, so I'm always incredibly doubtful of any of the miraculous stories I hear from others. At the same time, it's because of this doubt that I so desperately wanted to experience God for myself.
I decided that, if I were to take God seriously, I would need to do whatever I could on my end to "press into" God and leave the rest up to Him. This meant that I would go to the front of the church during worship, or ask people lay hands on me and pray for me. As a skeptic and an introvert, these were huge steps for me. And many times, I wouldn't have a tangible experience with God, and I would get disheartened.
However, there have been a number of times now when I really did have experiences with God.
God lives in you. You have the Holy Spirit inside you; Christ Himself lives in you. However, for whatever reason, God sometimes gives us strong, palpable experiences and awareness of His presence, whereas most of the time we're not aware.
As someone who was originally skeptical of the "charismas," or of personal encounters with God and His Holy Spirit, I now urge you to pursue relationship with God.
That means spending time in prayer. I grew up always praying in my head with my eyes open, because I knew that God could still hear my prayers. However, I've discovered more and more that the act of going in my room, closing the door, kneeling, and praying out loud is richly rewarding. That's how people prayed throughout the Bible. I think that it helps me to connect that I'm praying the God of the universe, rather than just thinking to myself and projecting my desires.
For me, personally, walks alone and in nature have brought me closer to God. I'm someone who's always been deeply affected by nature - even in my doubt, I see the hand of the Creator in His Creation. And some of my encounters with God have been when I've been on a walk alone, not in a church.
Nonetheless, Christian community is extremely important. The Bible affirms repeatedly the importance of the church. If you're not already, try to attend church regularly and get involved with a youth group. I'm incredibly introverted, and in high school I would have thought I'd never be involved in a social group like that. However, our desire to know God should be higher than our desire for personal comfort. We need Christian friends and community surrounding us - people who will love and encourage us, people we can confide our sins and struggles to, people who will pray for us.
Worship is also incredibly important. I didn't used to sing in church. In fact, I went to a Christian school, and I would often remain seated during chapel worship. I was a Christian, but I thought that worship just "wasn't the way I connected with God." I thought that other people who are into praise music can connect with Him that way, whereas I connect with Him in other ways. While it's true that some people connect to God through certain channels more than others, we are all called to worship. I was making worship about myself - What can I get out of it? - instead of it being about God. Ironically, the more you make worship about God and not about yourself, the more you're bound to actually get out of it. This is one of the radical truths of Christianity - the more you give up of yourself, the more you truly are yourself. The more you live for others and for God, the more you're truly alive. It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Lastly, I must mention that good sermons and good books are really helpful, especially if your mind works similarly to mine. I mentioned in another comment Mere Christianity and The Reason for God - I consider them both must-reads for any Christian, but especially the one struggling with doubt. There are other good books, some specific to a particular doubt. (For instance, if your doubt has to do with the relationship between Christianity and science, then The Language of God is a must read.)
As far as sermons go, I really recommend Timothy Keller. If you have a smartphone or mp3 player, you can easily get podcasts for free.
I'll be praying for you. Feel free to PM me with any additional questions, or any particular doubts.
Here's the full source of the quote.
This book has a collection of the most memorable speeches/writings from MLK.
Wikipedia has a list of the sermons and speeches from the late Reverend too.
Best reference possible I used it extensively when I was more into debating
Shaeffer's book, "Crazy For God" is a MUST read:
http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0786718919
If that book is tl;dr, he deals with a lot of the same material in the very short and entertaining book called "Portofino":
http://www.amazon.com/Portofino-Novel-Calvin-Becker-Trilogy/dp/0786713755/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253216591&sr=1-1
Seriously; this guy is awesome.
There are many of us that reject traditional views of what the Bible is and how it should be read. I've just finished reading a couple of books by Peter Enns (view here and here) that address the concerns you brought up as well as many others. It was a very therapeutic read for me.
I prefer Stott over Lewis, but want to add to your troubles by adding a third option, The Reason for God
Your questions are legitimate and ignoring it is not the way to go. I constantly questions religion and try to learn more, its the only way to stay true to who you are because sometimes belief is NOT a choice. Tell me to believe in unicorns and I just can't Try reading The Reason for God, I'm currently reading stand really like it. Maybe it can answer some questions for you.
http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324620669&sr=8-1
I just started reading his book "The Reason For God - Belief In An Age Of Skepticism.".
It seems well-written but I can't comment on the quality of his reasoning yet.
I don't know what you mean by "too fundamental".
I honestly found The Reason for God to be a good read. It's well written and the author writes with much humility.
I would recommend Timothy Keller's "The Reason for God" as the author is very good at explaining how Christianity is not a pie in the sky thing. The book is geared to a public that likes logic and is very fact based as Timothy Keller started a rather successful church in NYC that seems to cater mostly to lawyers, doctors and finance people.
Are some of your family members Christian? You could talk to them (certainly if it's your immediate family like mom and dad or siblings). It'd be harder if it's like a cousin or uncle or grandmother, but you probably want someone to talk to who you trust. Do you have friends who are Christian? Maybe just ask them- if this is a big decision in your life, they should hopefully have your back. You might find out that some of your friends are Christian and you didn't even know because they were too intimidated to tell you that and now you made the first move so it's find to talk about it.
If you really want to read something, you could try reading one of the gospels. Maybe Mark? I also think you'd benefit by reading something a little less formal, a little more geared right at you (the gospels have a lot of context and history and previous knowledge that they expect readers to be working with, so either accept that there's stuff that's going over your head and read them anyway or get a study Bible to help). A lot of people recommend Mere Christianity or The Reason for God or others by Tim Keller. I think that's the sort of thing you're looking for.
First of all, I applaud your courage to seek the truth even if it leads you to a place that requires humility. God loves you and is clearly drawing you to himself! The word "faith" in the New Testament means "to be pursuaded by God." He is the one creating the desire and belief in you even as it develops, how cool is that?
Now, in reply to your comment, a lot of people have differing opinions of exactly what a "literal" interpretation even means. My best explanation would be to say that everything that the Bible says happened, actually happened, exactly as it says... regardless of whether the author of the passage actually meant for it to be taken literally.
A simple example:
Most of Jesus' teaching is through parables, or stories that have representative meaning. Sometimes he begins them "Suppose a woman has ten silver coins..." but sometimes he begins them like "There was a man who had two sons." Now, in my view, a literal interpretation of Jesus' teaching would be that this man and his sons actually existed, because of how he phrases it. But there is good reason to believe Jesus is making up this story to illustrate a point, and this would be generally understood by his audience, much like beginning a story "once upon a time" indicates that this is fiction, even though your literal words are saying that this story happened. Think about most fiction you read; rarely if ever does it explicitly state that it is fiction -- usually it just says this stuff happened and you are supposed to understand that it didn't.
So... there are parts of the Bible that are believed by many Bible scholars to have been written with the intent of teaching a principle but not to be a literal, historical record of fact. There are MORE parts of the Bible that are certainly standard written histories, and many of these stories have fantastic and miraculous elements. So I am not saying that you can't take the Bible at face value, because most of it is absolutely meant to be read that way.
But there are parts that are written about the beginning of the world, and for reasons I won't get into explaining here (you can research if you're interested), many who know this stuff better than you or I ever will are convinced that they were written to illustrate the truth that God is the creator of everything, but not written to describe exactly what his specific method and timeline was for creating. Similarly, there are visions people have of their future which are written in an extremely metaphorical way, much like dreams represent true ideas but not literal ones. When I dream of my teeth falling out, it means I'm stressed about something, but not specifically about my teeth falling out. So many of these predictions were not thought to be literal representations even by the people who had the visions or made the predictions.
The good news for you, as a person investigating faith, is that these interpretations do not really have to have significant impact on your journey at the moment. Your focus should be on the love of God for humanity, and the (historically factual/literal) accounts of Jesus' life in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Get to know God and spend time reading the Bible, with the Holy Spirit guiding you, before you draw your line in the sand about what kind of interpretation you insist on being correct. That would be like me placing a million dollar bet on a baseball team to win the world series before I'd ever even seen a baseball game.
You have been given some good book recommendations already. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is an extraordinary book that spends a fair amount of time just pondering logically the likelihood that God exists at all. It gets more specifically into Christianity later in the book.
There are also two books by pastor Timothy Keller that you may enjoy: Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical and The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. These again are more about the arguments for and against God's existence which you may or may not need at this point in your journey.
But of course, the most important of all is simply the Bible. The Gospel of Mark may be a good place to start because it is a historical record of Jesus' life written for the Romans, and therefore explains a lot about the Jewish customs that they would not have understood. But any of the four gospels are a wonderful place to begin.
Enjoy your journey, and I encourage you to take that leap of faith and ask God to show you the truth, even if you are not yet sure he even exists. I would pray such a prayer every day, or every time you begin reading anything about God. He is already drawing you to himself but prayer is a practice that brings our wills into alignment with his, and so when we pray for things that he already wants to do, he tends to show up even more significantly so your faith will grow.
Have you thought about reading any christian theology books? I find reading opposing perspectives and ideas helps to strengthen my own. If I can make a few recommendations...
The Reason for God - Timothy Keller
Jesus Among Other Gods - Ravi Zacharias
The End of Reason - Zacharias
Christian Apologetics - Norman Geisler
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
I would highly recommend everyone read Wayne Grudem's "Christian Beliefs". It's an abbreviated version of "Systematic Theology". Very short but concise overview of basic christian beliefs.
I can only recommend christian material as I haven't read a lot of other religious text. Christianity is the most relevant religion where I live, so understanding has been helpful in conversing with the religious folks around me.
I love Hitchen's, but his book sucked. It was too short, for one thing. A much better and more comprehensive book on the subject is Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict by Aroup Chatterjee.
Good question. Thanks for asking! What do you mean when you say
>the requirement of unquestioning faith?
As far as I've been able to tell, the crucial things about Christianity - the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of the Bible - are historically well attested. For me, that's the most compelling thing about Christianity, actually - that it makes sense in light of what I see in the observable world. I think some people have maybe an inaccurate perception of what Christianity's about, and that can be a source of confusion and miscommunication when we talk about "science and religion" (which, by the way, I think is somewhat of a false dichotomy).
That was kind of rambly, but I hope it at least began to answer your question. By nature, I'm a fairly analytical (read: doubting Thomas) kind of person, so I appreciate your asking about this.
If you're interested, Tim Keller's The Reason for God has been a helpful book for me as I've thought through these things.
> If it's a celeb it's fair game.
I didn't see anything specifically about that in the sidebar, and I recently got frustrated about a post being removed in another sub (r/politicaldiscussion) due to vague and counter-intuitive rules (and the mods not being helpful at all in explaining why), so I didn't want to risk it. It's Tim Keller, the author of The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.
I'll have a go...
> How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus... While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are....
If there is a God, then he gave you a brain capable of rational thought. Compare the claims of different religions against reality and see which one does the best of describing the world around you.
I suggest giving Christianity another go-- there's a good book called The Reason for God by Tim Keller that would be a decent read. I like it for two reasons, 1. Keller points out that Christianity is a faith where it's okay (and normal) to doubt. If a belief system is true, then it has nothing to fear from honest investigation. Also, 2. it lays out a rational and convincing argument for God.
> How does the physical world reconcile with scripture (genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution)?
Perhaps the bible is not saying what you think it is saying? 'Evolution' is a pretty big and nuanced topic and the Bible is perfectly compatible with most of it. For instance,
Where the Bible draws the line is in regards to the origins of humanity.
Now you can do with this what you will, but do not think that scientific consensus regarding evolution is as meaningful as you might think browsing a website like Reddit. While evolution explains many of the biological anomalies we see in nature, it provides no compelling evidence at all for abiogenesis-- the creation of life. The theory of evolution is built on the incremental changes in DNA that occur as life propogates itself, yet the problem is that life had to have begun somewhere in order for any propogationg to have happened in the first place. As far as I can tell, theories of abiogenesis are not based on empirical science. The best scientists in the world using the best equipment available cannot create life from inanimate molecules-- they can't even create proteins, which are far less complex than DNA or RNA. The best thay have been able to muster is create some amino acids which are the basic building blocks of proteins. Even these results are debated
Sir Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA has written in favor of so called directed pan-spermia, the idea that extraterrestrials seeded our planed with life. Honestly, this is one of the most compelling theories in favor of abiogenesis. This brings me to your comment:
> If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction?
A nobel laureate and noted athiest has literally written papers proposing that a powerful alien seeded life on this planet. Sounds like science fiction to me.
> How can someone who created the universe care about me individually?
If you can grant the existance of an all powerful, all knowing deity, is it really that hard to believe that he would have the ability to know and care for each individual?
----------------------------------------------------------
Just some thoughts, I'm interested in hearing what you think.
I feel like you're looking at it the wrong way, you see salvation as a way to get into heaven and you've gotten caught up in the doing things like worship group to validate yourself. I think what you need to do is change your idea of God and salvation. It's not just about going to Heaven, that's just a perk. It's about a Father who created you and loves you. I say the best resource is the Bible. It is about 60% prophecy which most has already been fulfilled. You can look at all these things but each one will have something because it's written by humans and we can't even grasp how great He is. I know you're looking for cold, hard facts but it's faith that will truly show you Him.
I hear this is a good apologetic book though, if you want proof, look up apologetics:
-J. Warner Wallace (part of Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason crew) has a new book out - - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels - - Its only $3.74 for Kindle on Amazon
( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A71Y7I8?ie=UTF8&camp=213733&creative=393177&creativeASIN=B00A71Y7I8&linkCode=shr&tag=apologetics31-20&utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferf7a2a&utm_medium=twitter )
I don't know about an article, but Exposing Mother Teresa was a good, really comprehensive book. Don't know what to tell you about abortion, I haven't found a solution to that one yet.
I'll put forward three more that I have read several times.
No problem! If you are interested in the Christian doctrine of Universalism I can recommend the books The Evangelical Universalist and Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate.
We all have doubts. It's part of being human and being a Christian. As you mentioned you are still looking for truth and are open to the idea of theism. I would just recommend a few books for reading that are great intellectual reading about the subject. That being: The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism and The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
as well as anything by CS Lewis notably [Mere Christianity] (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425281260&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity+cs+lewis) and Screwtape Letters.
All the best in finding truth friend, and although you may doubt Him (even as Apostles, greatest evangelists, martyrs, missionaries also did) I would not advise ruling out Christ just yet.
I suggest a combination of reading:
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
by Timothy Keller
Luke (NRSV translation)
Read both with an open mind, see what happens.
>The main problem with denying its inerrancy is that it fundamentally becomes useless. Find a scripture that makes your life harder? Find a scripture that makes you uncomfortable? Simply ignore it. In essence its a license to invent a God and religoin that perfectly suits whatever lifestyle of belief you want it to, regardless of the truth.
I believe you have set up a false dichotomy: either the scripture is inerrant (100% factually true in all manners, according to author's intention) or it is useless. This doesn't have to be the case, although I understand the inerrantist mindset in thinking it is so.
Scripture can contain exaggerations, flaws, and even outright errors because it is a book written by humans. If God verbally inspired the 66 books of the Bible, then I will go on record and say that He did kind of a poor job. There are confusing bits everywhere that don't reconcile with one another (Nephilim, Witch at Endor, Zombies at the end of Matthew), there are conflicting accounts of the same events (death of Saul, Jesus' testimony before pilate, Saul/Paul's conversion story), it seems pretty clear to archaeologists that the Exodus could not have happened on the scale described in the Exodus nor could pretty much all of the book of Joshua.
I know that you can come up with answers to all of these, they are not new objections. But we don't need to do the innerancy dance. We can take the Bible for what it is: the best primary source we have concerning God's unfolding, progressive revelation of Himself to Humanity.
I submit that nobody truly believes that the choice is either inerrancy or garbage. If that were true there would be no sermons, no commentaries, no C.S. Lewis writings--we all know that these are wholly human creations, and capable of error, yet they are very useful and very powerful and we have all experienced God through these (and no, I am not saying they are not on the same level as the scripture, I am merely pointing out that errant does not equal useless and full of lies).
Anywho, check out this book if you want. There are smarter people than us having these same discussions. It has a pretty wide range of views and a good discussion.
Or check out this review of the book here.
I highly recommend Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. It sounds like just the thing you are looking for. I would also recommend Tim Keller's Reason for God.
I came here to mention The Reason for God.
This book is fantastic. One of the better interviews, believe it or not, was published in Playboy.
I am so there with you.
The challenge with some of the louder atheists voices is that, while they are factually and logically correct, they let the big, fat target of dinosaur-riding literalists dismiss all value from any sort of spiritual or religious inquiry. You shouldn't have to feel constrained by that sort of black-and-white dichotomy.
My advice is: 1) feel free to call yourself whatever you would like, 2) believe whatever you can square with both your intellect and your heart, 3) don't feel swayed by anyone who says you can only believe A if you also believe B and don't believe C. Some people find comfort in boundaries. You may not.
If you are true to yourself, you will end up confusing a lot of Christians and non-Christians. It'll be worth it.
I will probably get crucified by the diehards and traditionalists, but for me personally, as a science/math/engineering-loving rationalist, I can not believe that Jesus literally walked on water or that he literally rose from the grave. I can not believe in a proverbial heaven. I can not believe in an anthropomorphic, supernatural God that intervenes in human history. I can't literally believe much at all about the Bible, other than that there is some great wisdom written down by very wise people a long time ago.
For a long time, I avoided the tough questions that you are wrestling with by sweeping many of them under the rug as "mysteries of faith" and relying on my gut experience of the divine, something like, I often feel the presence of something divine, so God must exist, and if God does exist, then I guess God could do A, B, and C. But no, at the end of the day, I can not believe in physics defying miracles. I just don't. I read some Christian apologetics. What I read is comforting if you already believe or really want to believe, but ultimately, I didn't find any of it convincing.
Once I just admitted it and stopped wrestling with trying to believe the illogical/impossible, it really freed me up to explore what is important to me. I can believe in the idea of divinity, that there is intrinsic worth and numinous beauty within the cosmos and within human life that goes beyond just our material value.
I can love Jesus, the concept of Jesus, the stories of Jesus, the celebration of what Jesus represents. I can believe that his example and teachings are a path that will bring me closer to communion with the divine and with other humans. So I can call myself a Christian, attend church, and do whatever else that brings me closer to God and Christ.
You might want to take a look at the book Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong.
tl;dr -- You can follow Christ and not believe the illogical/impossible, but a lot of people won't get it
Check out these for the use of myth in Christianity:
Myth, History, and Faith: The Remythologizing of Christianity
Myth and Ritual In Christianity
Jesus Christ and Mythology
If you want "The Stories of the Bible for the Non-Religious" definitely check out Jesus for the Non-Religious though be aware that Spong is not well regraded by most mainline Christians and he ahs mixed opinions in academia.
There's a great book out there called Crazy for God that goes into some of the political conservative takeover of Christian votes via the work of Billy Graham, James Dobson, Francis Schaeffer and others.
It's written by the son of Francis Schaeffer, who notes that his father also came to quite regret allowing himself to be drawn into the shenanigans, regarding many of the behind the scenes goings on as wholly un-Christian.
It's a terrible shame - even for Christians - because there are many parts of Leftist philosophy (and even history) that have a more natural alignment with Christian values, but these highly successful efforts seem to have dulled much thought around that.
Why I Left/Why I Stayed by Tony and Bart Campolo (father and son, Bart left the faith and is a humanist chaplain and has a podcast)
Crazy For God by Frank Schaeffer
I mostly listened to podcasts of those personal stories. If you want some recommendations let me know.
I haven't read it, but this might be a start.
https://www.amazon.ca/God-Our-Side-Religious-America/dp/0767922573
Frank Schaeffer might be worth checking out too.
https://www.amazon.ca/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0306817500
I think he's genuine. Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
He put that out in 2008. And he's been vocal about it for quite a while.
There's more than one flavor of "inerrancy." You cannot be orthodox and maintain that the Bible has errors, but two people can disagree (to an extent) about what constitutes errors and still both be orthodox. Check this book out to explore more in depth.
"Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses"
https://www.amazon.ca/Reasoning-Scriptures-Jehovahs-Witnesses-Rhodes/dp/0736924515
Check this out if you haven't heard of it before:
"The Kingdom of the Cults"
by Walter Martin
From a Protestant (non-Catholic) perspective, Walter Martin might be considered the (an) authority on who is or who is not "Christian". And, yes, Catholics are Christians, as far as he's concerned.
There are, indeed, many, however, who don't regard Catholics as Christians. As you've no doubt read already, some groups that call themselves Baptists hold that view.
Most fundamentalist Christians (i.e., the only group concerned with what constitutes a "real" Christian) reject Mormonism as either a heresy or a cult because of how radically its theology differs from that of the Bible, including, but not limited to, Native Americans as a lost tribe of Israel to whom Jesus came after his resurrection, the "Magic underwear," the planet Kolob, connections to freemasonry, God as an enlightened human elevated to godhood rather than an eternal omnipotent/scient/present being, and the belief in the eventual elevation to Godhood of LDS members.
That said, I honestly wonder if the author of the linked post was ever a Mormon. The way he speaks about Mormonism sounds very similar to the way every fundie anti-cult literature and speaker I ever heard growing up spoke about Mormonism. The mention of freemasonry, especially, makes it sound like he is just reading off a list of fundamentalist warnings about Mormonism. I could be wrong, but it seriously sounds like something straight out of "Kingdom of the Cults."
Did a quick search and found a typical fundie list of why Christians should hate Mormons - this is pretty much average for the type of anti-LDS FUD that propagates within fundie churches that fear "cults."
To a skeptic, the difference between Mormonism and Christianity is about like the difference between Christianity and Islam or Judaism, but to a fundamentalist, Mormons might as well be witches.
Thanks. I'll check out the theories and Father Brown soon!
If you're ever looking for an interesting book from alternative perspective, I found Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation to be very interesting (and enjoyably written!).
Cheers.
One thing, Sodom and Gomorrah, while understood by the vast majority of people these days as being destroyed due to sexual immorality specifically homosexuality, within the actual context of the bible were claimed to have been destroyed largely due to inhospitality.
The next thing is, why would you think that God would tell us not to do something and then feel that He would be able to justify He, Himself, doing it. You are right, there is hypocrisy involved.
Evangelical fundamentalist christians pick and choose what they want to assert their views on. The fun thing and the morally "right" thing for them to do is to draw battle lines about hot topics like homosexuality.
In reality, I do not think there is any biblical basis for condemning people to death. I believe that the bible is imperfect and written by humans which is why it often times doesn't make sense despite the mental gymnastics apologists often do to try and make it seem divinely coherent and whole. Peter Enns writes a good book on this titled Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament!
Lastly, everything in the bible needs to be reread through the lens of Jesus. Jesus spoke a lot about love. If you do some good reading, I think you will find some good things.
I feel like we need to address this by the actual facts and details of the resurrection accounts and their corroborating historical texts, as it’s easy to lose the actual magnitude of any given piece of evidence when we analogize. For instance one of the corroborating texts mentions the darkening of the sky the gospels claimed occurred during the crucifixion and explains it as an eclipse. Not exactly equivalent to a neighbor witnessing the reactions of potential witnesses.
On that note I’d like to refer you to Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace(as its been a while since I’ve gone over it all) where he goes over things like the reliability of the gospels as a reference, the corroborating texts, and the various explanations for the lack of a body, all bearing in mind the standards we hold for investigating crimes from decades ago.
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539290737&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Cold+case+christianity&dpPl=1&dpID=513jwtjLlNL&ref=plSrch
I think /u/betweentwosuns comment is good and an excellent place to start. Once one gets past the fact that Christ was a real historical figure that actually existed, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are reliable testimonies of what He said and did, then one comes to a crossroads. He must either reject His claims, either by simply ignoring them or outright disagreeing with them, or accept His claims by faith. One of the books that is often recommend for studying these things is Strobel's The Case for Christ and there is also a newer book out called Cold Case Christianity which is also good.
Nein das habe ich nicht geschrieben. Mir gefällt die Idee aber gut und ich kann nur jedem empfehlen dem historischen Gehalt der entsprechenden Quellen mal gründlich auf den Zahn zu fühlen und sich nicht allein von populären, auf den ersten Blick überzeugenden Meinungen leiten zu lassen (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
Thank you for the indepth reply.
God has revealed Himself through creation:
>For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom 1:20)
I won't discuss a generic creator or pantheon because those are not my beliefs. Just the Christian God to which denomination doesn't matter provided the person accepts that they are a sinner and that they may receive the gift of freedom from sin and it's consequences through Christ alone.
Do you ever feel out of place? Or like things are wrong? Christians agree! We believe that because of sin, creation is corrupt bringing about all kinds of pain and frustration. This is another way that God reveals Himself to some people.
But really, existence is a pretty good argument for God. We exist in the "Goldilocks zone" that is one of very few places in the known universe that can support life. Not only that, but life actually appeared here. Just having the ability to support life doesn't automatically make it happen. In addition, we have intelligent, self-aware life. The math for this to occur is impossible. it can't happen. And yet we're here.
The debates are only necessary because God loves you and called His people to love you as well. There wouldn't be a debate if nobody cared.
God isn't a trickster nor an angry child not careless. His perspective as Creator and master of creation is wildly different from ours but always perfect. That includes a perfect love and a perfect sense of Justice.
If you want to know more about the reliability of eye witness accounts of Christ, I'd recommend Cold Case Christianity where an evidence-based approach is used on the gospels and supporting data. Man, Myth, Messiah also touches on this (and if only $1.99 on Kindle right now). And I understand that The Case for Christ written by an investigative reporter also looks into this but I haven't read that book myself yet.
Religious people don't have that much power. People who claim to be religious might. While 70% of Americans claim a "Christian heritage" only 40% of those people attend church. And only 45% of church attenders read the Bible away from church. Believe me, if more people who claimed to be Christian, actually knew the tenants of the faith you wouldn't have any problem with them being in power. The basics for Christianity start with: love God, love your neighbor, and love your enemy. Christians aren't called to hate gays, but to love them just like everyone else.
The instances of Christians being anti-science is mostly media hype. The scientific process began in the church as a method to explore and understand God's miraculous creation. The Bible isn't a science textbook, it's a collection of books and letters that form a singular narrative. It needs to be read and interpreted from that context.
And science has a lot of holes to be filled, including internal contradictions: quantum mechanics says the Big Bang is bunk, for example. Scientists and philosophers have been working for decades on a way to unify those pursuits called "the theory of everything". Science has faith that will happen. Some of what's called "science" really isn't. For science to be accurate it needs to be observable and repeatable. Here again, the Big Bang fails the test. I'm not anti science, and I suspect the Big Bang is valid, but I see it in Genesis:
> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [...] And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
Maybe that describes Big Bang? Maybe not.
As to how well I know Christ the answer is, "not well enough." Christ followers start by accepting Christ as our Lord and savior for the forgiveness of our sins. Then we change. That change is called sanctification and it happens by getting in relationship and learning from Christ. I mean this literally through prayer and by studying the Bible. God wants to be in relationship with us. The change is to make us more Christ-like. You assume Christ is unaccessible which isn't true. He's alive right now, today. And I am constantly surprised by him and his compassion and sacrifice.
There's a lot of misconceptions about the faith. I'm considering a project to combat that both in popular culture and within the church. That's why I started this thread.
You are so smart to do so my friend! You're probably a philosopher at heart, too inquisitive to "just believe." That's great, I wish more Christians were like that.
The fact is there's plenty plenty of evidence for the truth (both historical and philosophical) of Christianity though it just takes time to read through it all. It's something you kind of have to get a bug up your butt about, or in my case you get strong-armed into it mentally, in which case you become obsessed with it which is what happened to me.
For some lay-level reading I'd check out (in no particular order)
Cold Case Christianity
Reasonable Faith or really anything by William Lane Craig
Evidence for Christianity
There are a TON more...
Also, read the old Church fathers, really fun stuff.
Please feel free to PM me anytime, I will gladly talk to you about whatever you want.
>our religion, ie: for Judaism
I was under the impression that you didn't believe the Torah. Do you?
>Put up or shut up.
I'm not sure how you would like me to, but I'll list some resources below. If you would rather delve into it by having a strict dialogue between the two of us, that's cool too. I may not be able to respond quickly every time, depending on how this carries forth, but I'll do what I can. As you mentioned, your soul is "at stake and all that."
Gary Habermas and N.T. Wright are the top two resurrection scholars. Michael Licona is also a leading scholar on the resurrection debate. Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Antony Flew have even shown their faces on the scene as well.
Books
Presentations
Debates
Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona are the most frequent debaters on the Christian side, and Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are the most frequent debaters on the non-Christian side. Habermas, Craig, and/or Licona have debated the following (possibly) recognizable names on this issue: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Antony Flew, John Shelby Spong, Gerd Ludemann, Shabir Ally, Arif Ahmed, John Dominic Crossan, Robert M. Price, and Dan Barker.
YouTube is great for finding those debates. There are also, of course, dialogues in book form.
>if you don't like my tone
I'm actually enjoying your tone, haha
> Christians hail William Lane Craig for his work, and yet it never actually supports Jesus Christ as god. It supports the idea of *a god and then he just asserts he knows which one it is. Just as a heads up, people new to religious debate are susceptible to being snowed over by Christians claiming evidence of their god.
That's a rather odd claim.
No. It isnt. Unless you are claiming this book discusses the scientific evidence. Which I dont think you are.
But, correct me if im wrong.
> What'd you find on NT?
Unfortunately, almost all that I have read has been from books that I have in person but I'll link some of them:
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels - Craig L. Blomberg
The Reason for God - Timothy Keller
Making the Case for Christianity - Korey Maas, Adam Francisco
The Resurrection Fact - John Bombaro, Adam Francisco
I've also had Dr. Daniel Wallace recommended to me, although I haven't gotten to look into his work much. I know he has some videos scattered on YouTube that can be watched, here is one.
I'd also recommend anything by John Warwick Montgomery!
> Yeah, sure thing. Really, the most damning thing to me is that he only interviewed apologists; the skeptics that he mentions in the book did not have the opportunity to defend themselves there. But here are some sources that I found interesting:
Thank you!
EDIT: Formatting
http://www.amazon.com/Testament-Hope-Essential-Writings-Speeches/dp/0060646918/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373287752&sr=1-2&keywords=mlk
Jesus for the Non-religious
Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Spong
Look up Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong.
It is VERY different from Lee Strobel's car crash of a book. Probably not exactly what you were expecting either.
Perhaps something like this?
Try Jesus for the non-religious by Spong
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Non-Religious-John-Shelby-Spong/dp/0060778415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252525482&sr=1-1
Here's a great book from the other side. Frank Schaefer, a founding father of the religious right and the American Right to Life movement, recently wrote Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
He went from rabidly anti-choice to, while still not fully in support of abortion, supports a woman's right to choose in early stages.
For every woman who regrets that she had the abortion, there are many others who do not. Those who do not, will regret that they were in the position to require an abortion, but they value the life they were able to have because of their decision.
As for anti-theism, I'm anti-fundamentalism and anti-theocracy, and some would say that makes me an anti-theist.
I think some theism is mostly harmless, and some is very harmful. As long as the mostly harmless ones decry the harmful ones along side me, I'm fine with them. What pisses me off is when liberals dare not speak against fundies. I'm quite happy to see books like The Anointed(which I'm currently reading) and Crazy for God(which I haven't read yet), where non-evangelical believers rip fundies a new one. I hope they will take it a bit more seriously then they do when atheists point out their lunacy.
At minimum, 2/3 of the planet is totally wrong about the "true" religion. The groups who want to war over the fact that theirs is correct are dangerous on all sides, and every side is convinced that their way is the true way. They all can see how each other's god concept is totally crap, but can't see that their own tribal god is false.
If you like singing songs and having pot-lucks together, and want to think you live forever without that stopping you from caring about justice and love and excellence in the here and now, good for you. If your goal is to pass laws and indoctrinate until the whole world believes in your tribal god, and not care about this world because the next one is going to be so much better, go fuck yourself.
It isn't a direct study which I conclude this from. I'm drawing my argument from one that Michael Bird, who has written in Christian circles against inerrancy, made comparing the confessions of faith held by different global denominations:
>So the 60 million Anglicans in the global south hold to the Thirty-Nine Articles, with its reference to the “authority” and “sufficiency” of Scripture for salvation, leaving open how Scripture relates to history and science. The 75 million Presbyterians around the world, with major concentrations in Brazil and Korea, hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which affirms the “infallible truth and divine authority” of Scripture. The 2 million members of the Church of Southern India believe that “the Scriptures are the ultimate standard of faith and practice.” The Baptist World Alliance, representing some 41 million Baptists, in their Centenary Congress of 2005 declared that “the divinely inspired Old and New Testament Scriptures have supreme authority as the written Word of God and are fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.”
Source
No, those are good questions and not naive at all in my opinion. In fact, im still working through the implications of theistic evolution and the variety therewithin (non-athiestic evolution ideas mostly). Here is an article by a pastor named Tim Keller that discusses most of the questions you asked. Don't know if you've heard of him or not, but he's a fairly popular teaching pastor in the evangelical world from New York area, as well as the author of A Reason for God, which i own, but havent read yet. Anyways, that first link is an article he posted in response to people wondering how he can believe in God and evolutions. In a word, he claims that there is a literal Adam and Eve (brought up through evolution), but original sin didnt necessarily come through them (he breaks it down further). He also gives ulterior models for a thiestic bases evolution.
Like i said, im still working through what he talks about, as well responses to his articles by other Christians, so i dont have a clearly defined side on this issue, but its something that i like to think about.
>the name of the messiah prophesised was not Jesus.
Correct, I don't believe there was a name attached to prophesy, I didn't claim that they were waiting around for a guy named Jesus. Sorry if I came across that way.
>study != divinity
Not directly no, but it's a portion of it.
>is he god?
No. As far as I know, the people of North Korea do not have a prophesy list that Kim Jong Il fulfilled.
>How?
First, I don't know about the brainwashing abilities of the people in the first century. I would guess that if there were any of them, they weren't that developed, and the effects of it would most likely fall away without constant application.
There's a book that does a much better job of explaining these things than I do. it's called The Reason for God. It's a relatively short read. I'll even buy it for you if you can't get it from a library or another place.
You are doing great. This is a great book that addresses much of the "new atheist" evangelism. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller
Perhaps the "Big Questions" Series from this church is kind of what you're looking for?
This isn't an audio sermon, but it's a decent book I'm just about finished reading through.
Mere Christianity is available in audio for free.
If you're interested in his books, I recently finished reading Prodigal God and have a copy of Reason for God sitting atop my "todo pile" at home.
Prodigal God was a short read, but it was just enough to expound upon the familiar parable with a new insight. The crux of his argument was that "prodigal" is a more fitting description for God's own love for us (and the father in the story) rather than the lost son that we all associate with the word. He seems to have a knack for presenting fresh perspectives on things.
If you get a chance, I'd recommend either, although Reason for God is going to be the more substantial of the two.
Not a video feed but a book. The references I'm... Referencing ( oh god the redundancy) are actually from me reading http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0525950494 this book. It takes the bible and analyzes it like its a 12th grade English class practicing literary analysis. I'm a very logical and scientific minded person. I like there to be facts and proof before I believe something. And I also didn't believe in god and was a skeptic for awhile. And I find this book fascinating. I'm not making you read it or belief what you read. Just saying this explains things in a very logic and open minded way that might me different from your past religiously associated experiences. And no worries, you can't insult me :) I wouldn't have come to an atheist subreddit with my question bout God if I was easily insulted.
Yes there are! I enjoyed them all, I found them all on amazon for under $10-$15.
Some of my favorites are:
There are a few others but I can't remember the name off the top of my head, just type JWs into amazon and shit ton pops up. And if you want a laugh, some JWs left comments on some of the books angry about their existence and they were hilarious to me.
Edit:added some and changed formatting
Exegesis is looking at Scripture and trying to figure out what it originally meant to its audience. This means studying the historical context surrounding the verse. Someone mentioned Isaiah 53 not being about the Messiah. Why do they believe this? Well if you look at the historical context it makes sense that it's about Israel and/or Isaiah himself. Isaiah was traditionally believed to be martyred by the king of Israel. But later in the New Testament Paul applies a new meaning to the verse and attributes it to Christ. Which is right? Well as a Christian I would say both are important. Hermeneutics is merely taking what you learned through exegesis and applying it to a modern context or what it means to us.
As for learning more about it I could name many different books, but here are the ones I read first:
How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth
Grasping God's Word
Inspiration and Incarnation
I actually think that it's a wonderful thing that the Bible shows clear signs of human effort. It's a beautiful masterpiece of literature. I don't think the human-ness of the Bible is a bad thing at all, but I do understand how it might bother others. I could go on and on about this, but it's probably better to let my influences speak for themselves. Here are a few resources that helped me:
We Need a Better View of Inspiration, by Dr. Michael Heiser
Inspiration and Incarnation, by Dr. Peter Enns
Inspired, by Rachel Held Evans
Interview with Dr. Tim Mackie, by Almost Heretical
There is a good, very short, book by J.I. Packer called Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.
https://www.amazon.com/Evangelism-Sovereignty-God-J-Packer/dp/083083799X
It's a great read for understanding how those who believe in sovereignty and predestination still work hard at evangelism.
In my opinion it's because it's the truth.
Humans get into long debates over this whole thing but here's my short version:
We exist. We must have come from somewhere. The Bible offers the best explanation for our existence.
See this book for a decent, scientific approach to the question of God.
Thanks! Lots to read here. I read Lee Srobel's book Case For Christ and I must admit I found it annoying and disingenuous. I will definatly have a look at Reason For God. Have you read Who Made God?
Imagine if an actual homicide investigator actually investigated the NT
I would actually recommend this book to you
Cold Case Christianity - J Warner Wallace
J Warner Wallace was a cold case detective that did an empirical analysis base on cold case research techniques on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think it would be worth the look.
If you want a couple books about how skeptics became convinced of the truth of Christianity I'd recommend:
Look at what's available to you. Read some things. Attend churches that focus less on it being a religion and more so it being a relationship with God. Talk to the pastors there about your issues with Christianity. Make it a priority in your life to find truth. Go where the evidence takes you. No matter where it does, you're going to have to take a leap of faith since no side can be proven totally 100% true.
I recommend Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator, and Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek's I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, The Apologetic's Study Bible, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace, and really just Apologetics in general
The existence of God doesn't have immediate evidence like a cancer diagnosis, but that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence for God. Christianity is not a blind faith.
https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Life-Changing/dp/1401676707/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1543478665&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=evidence+that+demands+a+verdict&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543478756&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+case+christianity+by+j.+warner+wallace
Both of those authors were atheists or agnostics until they took the time to examine the evidence for the claims of Christianity. People like that don't completely change their life just because someone told them 'Yes, there is a God.' Wallace was a cold-case homicide detective and mocked Christians he knew.
>When I finally examined the evidence fairly using the tools I learned as a detective, I found it difficult to deny, especially if I hoped to retain my respect for the way evidence is utilized to determine truth. I found the evidence for Christianity as convincing as any cold-case I’d ever investigated. . . . I’m not a Christian because it “works” for me. I had a life prior to Christianity that seemed to be working just fine, and my life as a Christian hasn’t always been easy. I’m a Christian because it is true. I’m a Christian because I want to live in a way that reflects the truth. I’m a Christian because my high regard for the truth leaves me no alternative.
I'm not saying you should believe just because I say so or because a few authors write a few books about it. But doesn't it seem like there's enough evidence that you should take a seriously? If you're right about this, then you can move on with your life like nothing happened, and you would have more ammo if any other annoying Christians tried to convert you. But if you're wrong, then your eternal destiny hangs in the balance.
​
> On closer examination, Horus isn’t much like Jesus after all. It’s not unusual for the characteristics of ancient pre-Christian deities to be exaggerated in an effort to make them sound like Jesus. The first step in refuting such claims is to simply investigate the attributes carefully.
This is from the article you linked. Also,
> In the end, similarities between Jesus and mythological precursors fail to invalidate the historicity of Jesus. The historical veracity of Jesus is determined from the evidence supporting the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. Jesus is not simply a retelling of the Horus myth. While Horus worship is now a dead religion, Christianity continues to thrive. Why? Because the Christian records are reliable (for more on this, please refer to Cold-Case Christianity). Skeptics sometimes portray Horus as something he isn’t in order to keep us from believing in Jesus as something He is. But the reliable Biblical record establishes the Deity of Jesus in a way no other ancient mythological text could ever hope to achieve
Granted, this is a Christian website, but you're the one who linked it, so fair game.
Jesus is Lord my friend.
​
​
''Ya, its definitely the easiest to do nofap when you are busy and have other things to do that are meaningful that can distract you. What sorts of things are you doing now to fill your time to help w the nofap?''
Nothing much and here is the problem. I am going to do a trade thing pretty soon but currently I am essentially a NEET.
''Yeah, it is puzzling that the disciples chose to give their lives for Jesus after they had all fallen away. However it's definitely a leap to say that proves that Christianity is true though, as I'm sure you've heard''
Its not like suddenly hundreds of people suddenly claims that they saw the risen Christ. Unless something happened to cause them to believe that it happened.
I understand individuals being delusional but not all at the same time, mass hallucinations simply does not happen.
Its not like a resurrection story is believable even in the ancient world unless you actually see the person. But until then until a better explanation is put out I will remain a Christian.
''People do a lot of things that we don't understand, and it can be hard to ask one to accept that miraculous events explain these events since most often normal events can eventually be found to explain such circumstances. Now since we are dealing with something 2000 years ago, it's not like we can investigate the issue.''
For more information I recommend you check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696
Tacitus' words on the crucifixion of Christ are widely considered accurate. Josephus and Mara bar Serapion also record events surrounding Christ and the crucifixion. As a result of these and other evidences historical scholars (regardless of personal theistic position) agree that the person referenced as Jesus C hrist by us moderns did in fact exist.
There is ... vigorous argument around the veracity of the core of the four gospels. I found Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels very interesting because an atheist cold-case forensic analyst set out to prove the Gospels were false. Instead he became convinced they are factual eyewitness accounts.
> No, they don't.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512
>
> But we might just have to agree to disagree about that. In any case...
No, the only thing I'll agree to is that both you and Ehrman are totally wrong.
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Cold+case+christianity&qid=1554338796&s=books&sr=1-1
>Either way, let me just ask you: does faith in the God of the Bible produce any measurable (by a non-believer) effect that faith in some other god does not? If so, what is it? If not, then in what sense can such a god be said to exist?
You're asking the wrong question. The only effect my faith in God produces is my personal salvation, which is not testable. But is there good evidence that the God of the Bible is the one true God? Yes, there is very good evidence of that. One of the most powerful of these is fulfilled prophecy.
See:
https://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Hope-Hebrew-Studies-Theology-ebook/dp/B004OR18CY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=181JAOD14V0WZ&keywords=is+the+hebrew+bible+messianic&qid=1554338880&s=gateway&sprefix=is+the+hebrew+bible%2Cstripbooks%2C274&sr=8-1
---
Posted by: K**5
A balanced view only can be developed by hearing both sides.
Timothy Keller - The Reason for God - Believing in an Age of Skepticism (chapter summaries)
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
Alvin Plantinga - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Francis S. Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Craig A. Evans - Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
You can find longer list over at christianapologetics or at Kindle Deals in Christianity, Christian Worldview, and Apologetics
bethinking.org exists to help you make sense of the big questions about life.
The Biologos Foundation Ressource Finder
The Veritas Forum Talks
Shadow banned? It's still there for me. Copy/pasting below:
>How do you know, that the directly received knowledge is reliably true?
I examine the evidence available to me, and it matches up.
>Is it possible that the authors of the New Testament read the Old Testament and deliberately wrote the narrative in a way to make it fit with the prophecies?
No, for numerous reasons. First, that would represent a deliberate conspiracy to deceive people by creating a hoax. Men do not die for what they know to be a hoax. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by creating a hoax surrounding Jesus, and they proclaimed this Jesus starting in Jerusalem--the city wherein it would be the easiest for people to falsify their claims. Nearly all of the apostles went to their deaths at the hands of the Romans, via torture, without ever admitting to a hoax, and no one was able to come forth with any 'smoking gun' evidence of a hoax that would have nipped this new movement in the bud by showing it to be a hoax (like say, the body of Jesus Christ for example). They would have had no motive for remaining faithful unto death, if they knew it was all a lie. All they had to do was say 'Caesar is Lord' and they could have gone free.
Second: many of the facts that surround Jesus are independently testified from hostile sources that did not accept Jesus as Messiah. See: coldcasechristianity.com and specifically:https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1434704696/
Cool, so what’s your disproof of the possibility of miracles?
How would someone demonstrate the truth of the resurrection? I think that if you approach the question without assuming that the resurrection couldn’t have happened then that is the most likely answer: https://www.amazon.com/Son-Rises-Historical-Evidence-Resurrection/dp/1579104649
Sure, but if we’re unsure then not having any historical claims makes it less verifiable.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1579104649?pc_redir=1410492738&robot_redir=1
This WLC book
Ok, no worries.
Please try this one from Timothy Keller. Answers both of your questions
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594483493/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Vk1IAbM8MM0JV
I would highly recommend giving a fair reading to The Reason for God and Making Sense of God. Both books are written by author Timothy Keller.
The first half of The Reason for God addresses several of the most common critiques or "defeaters" of Christianity (i.e. "How can a good God allow suffering?"), and the second half goes into a more proactive presentation of Christian faith. I have found the book immensely helpful. I feel like Keller does a very fair-minded job of presenting the "other side of the argument" in a way that is not simplistic or based on straw-man argumentation. He also draws on a variety of literary and academic outside sources that make the book very engaging to read. The next book Making Sense of God was written a few years after The Reason for God, but in some ways it functions as an epistemological prequel that tackles more of the reasons why a faith-based worldview still has a place in contemporary society.
For extra measure here is a link that Tim Keller gave at Google over the his material in The Reason for God. The Q&A he does with the employees of Google at the end of the lecture is especially good.
I've found that I've really enjoyed some books that address topics that are interesting to Mormonism without being related to it at all.
Karen Armstrong (comparative religion/religious history), Bart Ehrman (biblical textual criticism), Timothy Keller (I really loved "The Reason for God"), Joseph Campbell (mythology), have all helped me gain a greater understanding of religion in general.
Other books that cover science and history have been excellent as well. I had what could be called a spiritual experience learning about the magnitude of life and how it exists when I read Carl Zimmer's "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea". I would also suggest learning a bit about the origins of modern civilization by studying about Mesopotamia. I found a bit of interesting American history (that also briefly mentions the 19th century "burned over district" and Joseph Smith) in "Occult America: The Secret History of How Mysticism Shaped Our Nation."
My current read is "This is my Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology" by Charles R. Harrell, a BYU professor. It seems like the type of book that many Mormons would find offensive, while many Mormons would find it inspired.
I also enjoy reading scripture and seeing what it says without trying to make it fit what I think it should say, especially the New Testament. Honestly, I think that the New Testament inspires fewer wtf moments than any of the other books of scripture :)
I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to believe in god, actually.
The Reason for God
Clearly many religions are quite irrational, however.
>I'm open to both the idea that god exists and that the bible is true. I am open to it.
But there is not sufficient evidence, and so I do not believe either of those two things.
I understand this completely, trust me. I was raised in a secular household and was an atheist most of my life (most of my comments on reddit are discussing religion so I feel like I mention this in every comment, haha).
I think the biggest thing for me is defining sufficient evidence. It's not a question that lends itself to unquestionable, empirical evidence. On top of that, some answers to the question require not just acknowledging the answer but living it (religious piety and devotion). It's not an easy problem to solve (if it can be solved at all).
 
>I've done just that, and now I am an atheist.
One thing I've realized about atheism is that it's pretty easy to align with, since it doesn't make any bold claims. I'm not saying belief systems need to make bold claims to be valid - that would be ridiculous. I'm saying atheism basically says "We know how works, and we don't know how works, so we'll keep trying to figure it out and see where it goes." There's nothing wrong with that (and in no way should we ever discourage research and the pursuit of knowledge, regardless of religious affiliation).
But, at the same time, I think that when atheists are looking at the questions that religion tries to answer, the evidence used isn't right for the problem. Knowing how the universe works doesn't contrast or disprove a designer of the universe, or a metaphysical realm. The fact that the universe exists means that a metaphysical realm is very likely - it just might be "empty" nothingness. An atheist looks at scientific discoveries as a replacement for god(s), but a religious person looks at these discoveries as an explanation of how god(s) did it. My point is that the truth that is resonating for atheists (or at least most of it) also resonates for religious folks, including Christians. We just have our own spiritual, metaphysical aspect in the picture as well.
 
>Who says I need to get far? Who says I haven't? And what do you mean by getting far?
When I say "getting far" I just mean exploring religion beyond lightly reading the texts while constantly fighting rolling your eyes. I meant actually giving them a chance, even if you end up deciding they're all nonsense. With a question like this, "getting far" is extremely subjective and all I can do is give you my own take on it.
 
>Let's say we didn't know what 2+2 evaluated to. If one religion gave the answer 72, another 42, another 620, is that in any way valid? No, just because we might not have a naturalistic answer to some questions doesn't mean that religion is valid.
I think understand what you're saying, but math isn't necessarily good example. Math is a constructed language to describe its real physical counterparts. We defined what "2" is and have thus defined what "4" is, in the sense that it is "2 + 2" or "1 + 1 + 1 + 1." The system very accurately describes the mathematical components of the universe, but the actual language of math is arbitrary. It is metaphysical in a sense, but it is mapped to a physical reality.
In the case of religion, the physical mapping is literally the universe. At least, it is in a way (and it depends on which religion you're talking about). Religion doesn't try to provide a language to discuss an existing system inside of the universe, it tries to explain the universe itself and the context of humanity and life within it. On the other hand, in a similar way to math - it explains self-aware humans as having souls and our gifts that put us above other animals as gifts from God. We are self-aware with intelligence and morality either way, regardless of whether or not you view them as God-given or as a result of pure natural evolution. In the case of religion, though, these aren't necessarily just arbitrary man-made ideas to explain physical realities. There is a potential that they are the system. Does that make sense? This particular answer was a little stream-of-consciousness-esque.
 
> Could you provide a demonstration? I do not believe this to be the case.
This is an answer that has been written as books for a reason - it's long. I have a blog and am planning on writing a page on this eventually, but in the meantime I don't want to look like I'm dodging your question. So here's something I wrote in another comment:
>Here are some of the examples of questions that, when I approached them with an open mind to the possibility (however small it was to me at the time) of a supernatural or external being, they made sense in that context.
>* Why are we so far above animals in terms of intelligence and self-awareness?
If there is a Creator, what kind of Creator would that be based on observing the universe that it created? This question is more for addressing current world religions or attempting to connect (or recognize the inability to connect) to a Creator. I think the universe has elements that point to design, and I think the Creator would need to be a personal God based on how human beings (and other social animals to an extent) interact and function psychologically.
If you're interested in how I came to faith through reasoning it out, I highly suggest [The Reason for God](https://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493?ie=UTF8&Version=1&entries*=0) by Timothy Keller. Another great book that helped me and that also discusses the perception of science and faith being at war is The Language of God* by Francis Collins. He's the leader of the Human Genome Project and has some good input for questions like Christianity and evolution.
 
One final thing I feel the need to say is that you're not going to wake up one morning and be 100% sure of God's existence, or any god's existence. It's called a "walk of faith" for a reason, and it's a complex answer to a very complex question. But just because it's not "easy" to believe doesn't mean it directly contradicts scientific evidence or all forms of logic, it's just that once you honestly don't believe in the supernatural it's hard to wrap your head around it. But that particular aspect doesn't reflect the validity of the supernatural answers, it's a result of our limited perception confined to the physical universe.
Regardless of what you land on or if you even take any of this to heart, I wish you the best of luck with this journey (or, if you don't budge, I wish you luck with your life as it already is). :) If you want to talk to me more about it, you're welcome to do it via commenting or personal message if you'd prefer.
This was pretty good as well:
The Reason for God
Written by a Tim Keller, a pastor in NYC.
Not going to try to convince you but a good book for the Christian skeptic is "The Reason For God" by Timothy Keller.
You should look into the story of C.S. Lewis, one of the most famous theologians and Christian writers in modern history. He, like you, was raised a Christian but became an atheist at the age of 15. When he was an atheist, he started reading about Christianity and asking some of the same questions you are, but finding answers. Two of my favorite books that helped me confirm my faith are linked below. Give them a read before you make any decisions.. Mere Christianity is a little tough to get through, but I have a copy with plenty of pencil markings in it next to my bed.
- Mere Christianity by CS Lewis
- The Reason for God by Timothy Keller
Also, about where you were born.. Catholics believe God knew us from the day he created us. Even if you were born in a Muslim family, you would have found your way to the same place somehow.
You have reached the very foundational elements of the faith that are a very large part of why I am a christian, or at least remained a christian once i sought out what the bible had to say about these exact questions.
So philosophically or more so existentially, the truth of why or what it all means has to be an open playing field so to speak. Fatalism, Nihilism or forms of Pessimistic thought have some implications that seem unpleasant or off putting to some, but ultimately hold water within their own logical frame work. Just because an idea is initially off putting does not make it wrong. The difference between those schools of thought vs. Christianity is that they are not built on a foundation upward, but rather a foundation is kind of the conclusion drawn out from an evolving argument. Christianity has a much higher burden in terms of it's foundational consistency.
Instead of being the product of reasoning, Christianity is a product of ancient documents ranging in literary style from history, poetry, theology, personal letters, and prophesy. Out of those documents a cohesive understanding of the universe and the existential impact of that understanding form the religion. That means the documents have to be the source and need to have not changed over the years to support new philosophies. (at least if you're rational)
So if Christianity is true, then the best way to test it would be to examine the most accurate understanding of these ancient manuscripts alone. That's everything from fields of archeology, historical and textual criticism to (what we are touching on in this thread) doctrinal and theological cohesiveness. Do these ancient manuscripts actually form a cohesive philosophy, without the aid of reasoning from a foundation outside of the documents? Also the documents examined have to be the most original copies of these documents along with the most accurate understanding of the way the original authors and readers would have understood them?
It's no easy task and definitely not something to exhaust on reedit. I hope i've given you a better understanding of some deep theological ramifications of biblical christianity and the kind of philosophical impact they have on hypothetical questions. I will now answer your questions, and the answers will no doubt seem trite and unhelpful. But i think i've reached the end of what i can say to a stranger on the internet, having no clue what background you have in biblical study and no idea where to start:
>So the point of Christianity is to glorify God? And if you fail to do this you suffer in hell for an eternity? This seems like a rather conceited concept does it not?
yes it does seem like that within the framework of human interaction and affections. So the way this idea works is not something to understand within the framework of human interaction and affections. God is not human and so again, it's an open playing field. The question is, does the answers the bible gives make any sense?
>So god is willing to punish those who have absolutely no control over whether they survive long enough to reach an age where they could even possibly understand Christianity? Or do you mean he will only punish the babies that would have never become christian?
I have no idea if either of those are true but the plausibility that they remotely could be is built off the theology (a study of the nature and character of god) in the bible. The biblical documents do not flinch in their explanations of seemingly paradoxical ideas. Paradoxical ideas crop up everywhere in the search for understanding meaning, morals, or truth in reality, it's up to you to judge what you think about the answers the bible gives.
>So god is responsible for saving you from a punishment he himself created? The way you depict it makes it sound like what you do is irrelevant in regards to being saved, by this reasoning, is there even a point to try and do ethical actions, since regardless of what you do, you are already saved or damned.
I can defiantly say "trying to do ethical actions" has nothing to do with being saved or dammed. And as far as the seeming paradox of god creating the punishment (what exactly this punishment is is debated between christians) that he himself saves you from? The ultimate purpose is that he gets more glory if he did it this way then just created beings already perfect and ready for eternity with him.
_
Some book ideas about what I talking about.
Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist answers how God's Glory works for our benefit from the bible.
The Reason for God answers some of the seemingly off-puting or paradoxical ramifications of biblical theology.
It's really interesting, actually, if you want to research that. I've looked into the New Testament much more than the Old Testament. I used to have a saved comment that I'd post when this topic came up, but I lost the file when my computer died.
I can respond to this, though:
> A story that was developed and passed down until someone actually wrote it down.
Paul was writing his letters earlier than 70-90 CE. 1 Thessalonians is dated to around 52 CE. This would be not long after the crucifixion. Also, the earliest (generally accepted) date I've seen for the gospel accounts is 70 CE. If we assume Jesus was crucified in 30 CE, that's only 40 years later. Eye-witnesses to Jesus' ministry would still be alive.
You might be interested in this thread from /r/AskHistorians. I want to specifically point out this comment because I think it illustrates that we often expect to find more evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels (was Jesus real?) than we do for most other historical texts and figures. There are some other threads in that sub on the topic of Jesus that you might find interesting.
I can also recommend a book to you that touches on this (among other topics). The Reason for God is a good book to start with.
You could start with the book linked at the start of the article. Well, no, scratch that. It seems all copies on Amazon and AbeBooks (a database of thousands of used bookstores) now have only 6 total copies, selling for $470 to $9,999.
Start with this wiki overview, then scroll to the bottom and go through the many cited articles.
There's sources linked in that thread.
Biography which has documentation in it.
This review is pretty informative.
The linked article itself is by Chris Hitchens, but some claim that he might be biased too.
I would recommend Keller's Reason for God, which attempts to address this very question: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594483493/
http://www.meteorbooks.com/index.html
http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Verdict-Aroup-Chatterjee/dp/8188248002
You should switch too, or maybe go for two books.
I recommend Tim Keller's The Reason for God.
I would highly recommend (perhaps ironically?) Lewis's Mere Christianity which is available to read online.
That book helped me when I was looking into whether Christianity was true or not. That, and Tim Keller's The Reason for God (here's the kindle page).
Keller's book uses a lot of the material from Lewis's, and presents it in a 21^st century context, and answered for me a lot of protests I had against Christianity. I've listed the relevant chapter headings below.
You should look at these :
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates-ebook/dp/B00A71Y7I8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542809757&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+case+christianity
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation-ebook/dp/B01863JLK2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542809781&sr=1-1&keywords=a+case+for+christ
For too long people have interpreted the Bible without taking into account its various genres. When that is done all kinds of problems ensue. There is narrative, narrative mixed with fable, wisdom, prophecy, poetry, personifications, embellished war narratives, etc. Some sections were thematic and meant to impart a theological teaching and were never intended to be taken literally. I would suggest a few sources to help.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org
https://www.amazon.com/Guard-Students-Thinkers-Guide-Christian-ebook/dp/B00U894IGA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522428918&sr=8-3&dpID=410%252B8eMXoiL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=detail
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas-ebook/dp/B001QOGJY0/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522429211&sr=8-4-fkmr0
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates-ebook/dp/B00A71Y7I8/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522428968&sr=8-1
Can't think of too much that is recent. Maybe some of Michael Kruger's works, but that is aimed a bit more at the canon. Perhaps this Counterpoints volume on Inerrancy.
Sure. Here are a few, I'm sure you can find more
Hell's Angel- BBC Documentary
The Final Verdict - Book
Christopher Hitchens Article
Yes, I've read that book. It was terrible (almost as bad as the Rob Bell book you mentioned). Personally I wouldn't recommend either of these books, but I would recommend The evangelical universalist by Robin Parry.
Also heresies (like gnosticism) were called out as heresies by early church councils. The form of Christian universalism which was believed by many of the important early church fathers such as: Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Jerome etc. was never anathematised. A specific form of it taught by Origen was, but that had all sorts of other ideas attached to it too.
First, don't panic. A lot of people go through this as teenagers and return to Christ later in life. I did.
Second, make sure he knows how much you appreciate the fact that he trusted you with this. Continue to relate to him the same way you always have, because obviously you've been doing it right. The fact that he lost his faith isn't your fault. If it was your fault, he wouldn't have come to you with that information.
Third, have another private talk with him (not right away, but maybe in a week or two) where you ask him to tell you the story of how he became an atheist. Don't argue with him or say much of anything in response. Just listen.
Since he mentioned "science and contradictions", it is 99% likely that he fell for the usual atheist arguments that you find online. It is important that you listen to him in order to find out precisely which arguments persuaded him. Do not attempt to answer those arguments right away. Instead, do your research - and take your time with it - to find Christian apologetics that refute the specific atheist arguments which have persuaded him. Make sure you find good counter-arguments. There's a ton of simplistic nonsense out there.
Finally, after some weeks or months, offer him books or other materials (like website and blog links) that directly counter the atheist arguments which have persuaded him. Again, make sure these are high quality.
Off the top of my head, without knowing in advance the specific arguments that persuaded your son, I recommend the following books:
Please don't base such important views on reddit comments. Talk to a pastor, just search church in Google maps and go talk to one. or read books by them Reasons for God by Timothy Keller would be a good read [amazon.com] andor his podcasts [itunes.apple.com] [podbay.fm]
This book is a lot better than A Case for Christ http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493 , however if you read the god delusion then I would assume you know you can only be agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You cant just be agnostic, however personally I am an atheist because the concept of a soul seems dumb to me.
\>faith, by definition, is a delusion. It is belief in something without evidence, reason or logic, the practice of wilful delusion
In response to this I'd make the point I initially made, which is that to pretend that getting rid of religion produces some kind of ideological vacuum, a faithless existence, is naive. Whatever we believe, we believe by definition with incomplete evidence. We aren't God ourselves, and until we are, we don't know what's really going on out there. The scientific method is a beautiful tool for understanding the world around us, but we can only scratch the surface with our experiments and observations. The more we learn, the more we understand how incredibly vast and incredibly complex the universe is. Why does the scientific method even work? Why are there regularities, abstract objects, mathematical truths? Why is there order and structure in the universe?
My own faith isn't simply based on wishful thinking, but also a collection of arguments and evidence I find convincing, including a defence of God as the basis for any system of objective morality--you can find excellent resources to help you understand where people like me are coming from at
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
or
https://www.rzim.org/
or by ordering Tim Keller's book "The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism"
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594483493?ie=UTF8&tag=booresbytimke-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1594483493.
I hope that you might find in these resources answers for some your questions, or at least a broader understanding of religious faith.
Things that might make you wonder (not saying they would make you sure):
Your cavalier dismissal of a proposition that you have no conclusive evidence to refute seems unchallenged by your own introspection (that is, the proposition that it is possible that God exists). I humbly suggest that, if you read the above points and have dismissed them all already without any more thought, your denial of God is as much a faith position (or more) than many who do believe in God.
Should you be interested in a scholar who presents these arguments more completely than I, I would suggest The Reason for God by Tim Keller.
There's lots, on all different levels. So it depends what you're looking for and what questions are important to you. You might consider:
If you want to understand the philosophical arguments for God you could try:
Specifically on Jesus, you might try,
And one last one which I haven't read, but I hear is good
But honestly, simply reading the Bible, praying and earnestly seeking is the best start.
Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1401676707/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_BpmvCbAVGFXZY
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1434704696/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_0qmvCbH2E153C
I thought that Cold Case Christianity was an excellent book tracing J Warner Wallace's journey from skepticism to belief. He was a could case detective in LA, and set out to investigate the claims of Christians.
https://smile.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=cold+case+christianity+by+j.+warner+wallace&qid=1570230013&sprefix=cold+case&sr=8-1
> Prove that this man existed and that he did those things. You can't, just like Muslims can't prove that Mohamed flew to Heaven on a winged horse, and just like Hindus haven't been able to prove that reincarnation is real.
We have eye witness testimonies. There was a detective who works cold cases, and would convict people of crimes based on people's testimonies. He was an Atheist investigating the case for Christ. He found that the people's testimonies lined up, and he would consider them as viable evidence in court, and he came to the conclusion that it was all real.
Why do you not believe in the gospel accounts? They were hand written accounts by people who witnessed an event, or people who spoke to those people. Some of the things Jesus spoke about is verifiable today. As I have pointed out about the Holy Spirit guiding people, and people being able to heal and cast out demons in Jesus' name.
It's probably not your only reason, but you mentioned that you cannot worship a god that would allow so much atrocity and chaos. It would be worth your time to really explore your doubts even if only at first for your immediate goal of trying to understand her faith, and ultimately for your own sake. The Problem of Pain and The Reason for God are both books I have read and enjoyed that address those issues and more. Best wishes to you both.
The Reason for God by Timothy Keller is pretty great. [And it's crazy cheap in paperback on Amazon] (http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300119353&sr=1-1)
Keller starts the book by describing 6 of the most common "God doesn't exist because..." claims and then refuting them. The last half of the book Keller makes the case for the Christian God of the bible. A great read, in my opinion.
I would add this.
I'm not going to be objective, but I will try to be graceful.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in their interpretation of their "translation" of the Bible as delivered through the current the literature that they buy and sell from the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Like other groups with roots in 19th century American Restoration Movement, they have a underlining presupposition the mainstream Christianity diverged from the truth of the Bible back in the days of early Roman Catholicism. They might say that the Reformation was a move in the right direction, away from the Pope and his demonically inspired organization, but they will deny just about every aspect of orthodoxy that isn't undeniably obvious.
JWs do not believe in the Trinity; it is a doctrine that they believe has pagan roots and is intrinsically polytheistic. Nevertheless, they believe that Jesus is a god, but not the God Jehovah. They believe that the Holy Spirit is merely the finger of God and not a distinct divine person.
JWs do not believe that people have immortal souls. They believe that one's spirit is simply one's breath.They believe that when a person dies, they are annihilated. God may choose to recreate anyone from His memory which is what he did with Jesus after his death. They do not believe that Jesus was resurrected as a physical man (except for when he had to demonstrate to his disciples that he was alive). They do not believe in the Ascension.
JWs do not believe in hell. They do not believe in Christ's sacrificial atonement. Christ is merely the first and most obedient creature that God created and is therefore our greatest example. They (currently) believe that only a very select group of believers will ever go to heaven. Most of humanity will be recreated from God's memory to repopulate a new earth. Those who did not offend God directly or join Satan's organization (the Roman Catholic Church) will be permitted to live in happiness whether or not they ever trusted in Jesus.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus died on a cross; he was nailed to a stake. They do not believe that God is out right more powerful than the Devil. They very likely believe that Jesus has already returned invisibly and that he is guiding the Governing Body of the Watch Tower and judging Christian churches around the globe.
Active JW missionaries are called publishers. They are heavily encouraged to study and distribute Watch Tower literature. They buy enough tracts and pamphlets to give away to whoever will take them with their own money. That money goes back to the Watch Tower B&T Society for them to print more books, pay staff (including the Governing Body), purchase and maintain property, and other organizational expenses. The materials in the literature is subject to change. Beyond certain points in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, you will find no publicly available physical literature that the Society has recalled. Ostensibly, that recalled literature will be made available digitally in unedited form (ostensibly).
JW churches are called Meeting Halls and their services are called meetings. Meetings are held several nights a week. It is in these meetings that the latest Watch Tower literature is discussed and their more systematic doctrines taught. One basic understanding that JWs have is that the Bible without the light of the Watch Tower is very easy to misunderstand. Nevertheless,I must admit that they spend more time memorizing (Watch Tower exegeted) scripture than I do.
There is much more about Jehovah's Witnesses to say, but I'll stop here before typos overwhelm me. I haven't even discussed their Bible or mentioned theocratic warfare.
Sources:
http://freeminds.org
Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz
30 Years A Watchtower Slave by William J Schnell
Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin
working with and befriending current, former, and disfellowshipped (excommunicated) JWs.
May not be an answer you expect to hear, but I would recommend learning about God and the gospel of Jesus. The Reason for God by Tim Keller is a great book, written specifically for skeptics and/or atheists. Not overly "preachy" Highly recommend!
omfucking non existing god, are you just dropped on your head several times a minute? Wtf is wrong with ya brah? Are you not able to read or what?
Did you just jumped to the last part of my post instead of using your extremities to type that shit on google ?
Motherfucker here you go, now, read and while you're at it, suck a bag of dicks retard:
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
And you can find a lot more, you could also type on that search thingy to your fucking top right and find a lot of discussions here on Reddit about the subject. Now go away you useless fucking human.
That’s a good question. I would recommend that the op examines the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here is a great place to start:
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels https://www.amazon.com/dp/1434704696/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Nv2gDbYT5YDQQ